Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to suspend him from the Homes for Ukraine Scheme and that it failed to properly investigate safeguarding concerns he raised about the family he sponsored. There was no fault in the way the Council decided to suspend Mr X from the scheme or in the way it investigated the safeguarding concerns he raised. It was at fault for the delay in investigating the concerns raised about Mr X, and in not communicating with him about this, or about the decision to suspend him from the scheme, earlier. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X and review its procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council suspended and then prevented him from being a sponsor under the Government’s Homes for Ukraine Scheme without informing him or giving him the opportunity to respond to the allegations raised.
2. Mr X also complained the Council failed to properly investigate safeguarding and other concerns he raised regarding the Ukrainian family he agreed to sponsor under the scheme.
3. As a result, Mr X says he is now unable to sponsor another family he has been in contact with and has been caused distress, frustration and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and have discussed the complaint with him on the telephone.
8. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
9. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background to the scheme

10. In March 2022 the Government launched the Homes for Ukraine Scheme. The scheme allows Ukrainian nationals to be sponsored to come to the UK. As a thank you, the Government makes a monthly payment of £350 a month to the sponsor (rising to £500 after a year).
11. The Government provided funding to councils to enable them to support sponsors and families housed under the scheme. The Council works in partnership with an organisation (company Q) to support families and their hosts in the Council’s area.
12. The local council is responsible for carrying out accommodation and safeguarding checks, for payments to sponsors and ongoing support. The council can recommend that a sponsor is unsuitable if it is not satisfied with safeguarding or welfare checks. The council is also responsible for finding alternative accommodation for families where there is a breakdown in the sponsorship arrangement. It is the council’s responsibility to notify the sponsor if it assesses the sponsor is unsuitable.
13. Where there are concerns about the safety of a child, councils are expected to follow their usual processes including undertaking safeguarding investigations where appropriate.

What happened

14. In June 2022 the Council registered Mr X on the Homes for Ukraine scheme after he passed the statutory checks. In early July 2022 the Council asked him to host a family as an emergency rematch as the family’s previous hosting arrangement had broken down. The family moved in with Mr X that day.
15. A representative of company Q spoke with a family member in early August 2022. They noted some issues with the host due to the language barrier, but that everything was well overall. During two further meetings later that month the family member raised further concerns and that they did not feel they were a good match for the host.
16. In September 2022 company Q spoke with Mr X who raised some issues regarding the family’s behaviour, but company Q noted he reported he generally got on well with the family. Following this company Q met with the family to discuss their concerns. This included regarding paying towards bills.
17. In early November 2022 Mr X emailed the Council that a member of the family had cowered over him and made threats to take him to court and to tell others he was a bad host. Mr X said he had reported this to the police. He said he had raised issues with the family member and the discussion had got heated. Mr X wanted the family to leave. He said he was willing to let two of the family members stay. Around the same time a family member raised concerns with company Q about Mr X’s behaviour and his treatment of the family. Two days later, with assistance from company Q, the family left Mr X’s home and were housed elsewhere. Company Q spoke with Mr X who felt his trust had been broken by a family member.
18. In late November 2022 company Q spoke with Mr X regarding redirecting post to the family.
19. The Council made relevant referrals, and it and company Q investigated the concerns raised by the family and Mr X. They were satisfied there were no safeguarding concerns and later closed the case.
20. In February and March 2023 the family reported to company Q that they had received malicious communications from Mr X.
21. In June 2023 a representative of Mr X received an email from another family Mr X was looking to sponsor. They had been told Mr X had been removed from the sponsor scheme and would not be able to host them. Mr X’s representative contacted the Homes for Ukraine Team to query this but did not get a response. Mr X also emailed the team. He got no response.
22. Mr X proceeded with a visa application for the family, but the family were advised, in August 2023, Mr X did not meet the requirements for approval under the scheme.
23. In September 2023 Mr X complained to the Council about the frustrations he had encountered when trying to sponsor another family and an unacceptable shortcoming in placing the first family with him. Mr X said he had not been given any reasons why he was removed as a sponsor.
24. The Council responded to Mr X later in September 2023. It said the commissioned provider (company Q) had investigated the allegations/complaints reported by the guest which raised serious safeguarding concerns regarding Mr X’s suitability to act as a host. Whilst these were being investigated it said it was duty bound to put measures in place to protect all parties, hence why it rejected Mr X’s request to be a host again. It said it would review the communications that had taken place and apologised if Mr X felt he had not received the high level of service it prided itself on delivering.
25. Mr X’s MP wrote to the Council on his behalf. The Council responded in early October 2023. It said it had investigated the allegations Mr X raised about the family and found no evidence to substantiate these. It said the level of seriousness of the allegations regarding Mr X were such that it had decided to suspend Mr X’s hosting until it had investigated the allegations. It said it recognised it had missed opportunities to reassure Mr X and manage his expectations and had delayed telling Mr X the reason for his suspension.
26. The Council met with Mr X in November 2023 to discuss the situation. At the meeting it advised him the pause on his ability to be a sponsor was being made permanent. It said it had considered a number of factors including the allegations made by Mr X regarding the family, email exchanges between Mr X and the family since they had left his property, notes made by company Q and Government guidance. Following this it wrote to Mr X to confirm it was unable to support his wish to sponsor families.
27. Mr X submitted a formal complaint to the Council. It responded to Mr X’s complaint in January 2024. It said it was unable to lift the ban as it considered Mr X did not meet the threshold for sponsors set by the Government. It said the family were removed as soon as it was informed of the breakdown in the relationship. It said it investigated the allegations in line with safeguarding procedures and the outcome was not communicated to Mr X as he no longer had a relationship with the family. It said the family had raised allegations with company Q who undertook welfare checks and supported the family. It said company Q identified concerns on both sides which were not in the spirit of a healthy sponsor/guest relationship. It considered both sides had overstepped the boundaries. It said the tone of Mr X’s emails evidenced an escalation in the power dynamic and it had little confidence the situation would not recur if a new family was matched with Mr X.
28. Mr X remained unhappy and in February 2024 asked to go to the next stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. He said the Council had not investigated safeguarding concerns he raised about the family. He considered the allegations made by the family were fabricated counter allegations after he raised his concerns with the family. Mr X referred to unfounded judgements and allegations made when he met with the Council.
29. The Council wrote to Mr X to advise that it had reviewed the stage one response and its findings remained the same. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s stage two response and has continued to raise his concerns with the Council.

Findings

30. Mr X agreed to host the family at short notice. This in itself was not fault but meant neither Mr X or the family had the opportunity to consider whether they might be a good match for each other. Mr X had expectations of the family which did not accord with the family’s wishes. Both Mr X and the family had raised some concerns with company Q in the months before Mr X asked the family to leave. However, there is no evidence they were so significant that company Q should have acted sooner to end the arrangement.
31. When it became clear in November 2022 the relationship between Mr X and the family had broken down, company Q acted appropriately to move the family.
32. The records show the Council acted appropriately to investigate the concerns Mr X raised, took appropriate action to ensure the safety of the family and provided them with appropriate support. There was no fault in the way it investigated the concerns Mr X raised.
33. It was not until June 2023, when Mr X approached the Council about sponsoring another family, that the Council suspended him from the scheme. At this time, Mr X and his representative emailed company Q to question his suspension but did not receive a response to their queries. The Council carried out an investigation and decided to make the suspension permanent in November 2023. The Council’s delay and poor communication with Mr X was fault. In its complaint response the Council recognised it had missed opportunities to reassure Mr X and manage his expectations and had delayed telling Mr X the reason for his suspension. This fault caused Mr X distress and upset when his attempt at further sponsorship was refused.
34. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone may disagree with the decision the organisation made. In deciding to suspend Mr X from the scheme the Council took into account all relevant information and Government guidance and met with Mr X to explain its decision. There is no fault in how the Council reached the decision to suspend Mr X from the scheme.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the distress and frustration he was caused by its failure to investigate the concerns raised and to update Mr X of the outcome and advise him of his suspension from the scheme, in a timely manner. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology.
36. Within two months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to review its procedures to ensure that allegations made concerning a sponsor under the Homes for Ukraine scheme are investigated promptly and the sponsor is made aware as soon as possible of any suspension and the outcome of the investigation.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice which it has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman